Holding

Under the 11 June 1953 notification, Sub‑Divisional Officers are empowered to discharge all functions of the Collector, including confirming auction sales, rendering the High Court's finding of lack of authority by the SDM erroneous.

Summary

The appellant, Kedar Nath Dubey, was the successful bidder at an auction of land under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, after the respondent, Sheo Narain Dubey, defaulted on a loan. The auction sale was confirmed by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate (SDM). The respondent challenged the confirmation, arguing that only the Collector could confirm the sale under Rules 285‑A, 285‑H, 285‑I, 285‑J, 285‑K and 285‑L. The Allahabad High Court struck down the confirmation, holding the SDM lacked such authority. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that Notifications dated 11 June 1953 (and a 1983 letter) expressly empower Sub‑Divisional Officers (SDOs) to discharge all functions of the Collector, including confirming sales. Consequently, the High Court’s decision was erroneous. The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the notifications, without expressing a view on the merits.

Issues considered

Whether a Sub‑Divisional Magistrate/Officer has the authority to confirm an auction sale under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and Rules 285‑A to 285‑L.
Whether the High Court correctly applied the statutory scheme and the relevant notifications in striking down the sale confirmation.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950s. 154, s. 198

Subjects

auction saleland reformconfirmation of saleSub‑Divisional OfficerCollectornotificationUttar PradeshZamindari Abolitionprocedural irregularitywrit petition

Judgment

A KEDAR NATH DOBEY (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.
v.
SHEO NARAIN DUBEY (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

MAY 12, 2005

B [ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950/Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1953-Rules 285-A,
C 285-H, 285-K, 285-L-Power of Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM)-
Conjirmation of sale of land ofdefaulter-High Court struck down sale holding
that SDM did not· have authority to confirm the sale and only the Collector
has such authority-Correctness of-Held: Various Notifications put on record
show that SDM has authority to discharge all functions of Collector-High
Court did not consider such Notifications-Matter remitted back for
D reconsideration in the light of the Notifications.

In recovery proceedings initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, land belonging to the predecessor-
in-title of respondents was auctioned. The predecessor-in-title of appellant
was the successful bidder and the sale was confirmed. The sale was
E challenged before the High Court on the ground that the requisite
procedure and prescribed rules were not followed and the auction sale was
confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who did not have the authority
to confirm the same. High court struck down the sale holding that SDM
did not have any authority to confirm the sale.
F In .appeal to this court, the appellant con~ended that the High Court
erroneously made reference to 17 .1.1976 notification without noticing that
other notifications which held the field clearly indicated that the Sub-
Divisional Officer has the power to accord approval to the auction sale;
that reference was made to Notification dated 11.6.1953 and letter of the
G Secretary, Revenue Board, U.P. dated 7.7.1983 and as the respondent
rested its case on Rule 285-1 and the High Court did not find anything
irregular in the order of the Commissioner holding that the provision to
Rule 285-I of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules, 1953 had been complied with, no interference by the High Court
was called for.
H 352
KEDAR NA TH DUBEY (D) BY LRS. v.SHEO NARAIN DUBEY (D) BY LRS. [PASAYAT, J.J 353

Disposing of the appeal, the Court A
HELD : The Notification dated 11.6.1953 makes the position clear
that in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh except districts of Almora,
Garhwal, Tehri Garhwal and Rampur, SDOs were authorized to discharge
all the functions of the Collector under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. A bare reading of the Notification B
dated 11.6.1953 as published in the official gazette dated 13.6.1953 shows
that it empowered all SDOs in Uftar Pradesh except those in the
enumerated districts to discharge all the functions of the Collector under
the Act. Letter of the Secretary, Revenue Board, U.P. dated 7.7.1983 also
throws light on the controversy. It related to discharge of power under
various provisions of the Act. It noted that by notification of 5.12.1968
c
Sub-Divisional Officers have been authorized to discharge all functions
of the Collector under.the Act except Section 198. Primafacie the stand
of the appellant is correct. It appears that these
I
pleas were not considered
by the High Court. The matter is remitted to the High Court for
considering it in accordance with law. (357-H; 358-C) D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3361 of2005. •'.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14. 7.2004 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 6437 of 1991.
E
Praveen Kumar Rai and Ms. Kavita Wadia for the Appellants.

C.D. Singh, R.K. Singh, Sanjay Kr. Singh, Ms. Kiran Suvama, Pramod
Swarup, J.K. Bhatia and Punit Dutt Tyagi for the Respondents .
.,

.' The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
'•

Challenge in this appeal is to the decision by a learned Single Jtidge.of
the Allahabad High Court holding that the auction sale ori 18.8: 1989 and
confirmation thereof was illegal. Kedar Nath Dubey, the predecessor of the G
appellant was the successful bidder. Objection filed by Sheo Natain Dubey,
the predecessor of non-official respondents was rejected by order dated
18.8.1989.

A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.
H
I==
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A The writ petitioner, Sheo Narain Dubey, the predecessor of non-official - ·
respondents had taken a loan for purchasing pumping set from U.P. State
Sahkari Agricultural Avam Gram Vikas Bank Limited, Salenpur, Deoria. As
the said loan was not repaid within the stpulated time, proceedings were
initiated for recovery of amount as arrears of land revenue under the Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short 'the
B Act'). Land belonging to the writ petitioner was auctioned on 18.8.1989. Bid
of Kedar Nath ·Dubey, the predecesso.r of the present appellant was accepted.
Sheo Narain ·Dubey filed objection under Rule 285(1) of the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, I 953 (in short 'the Rules').
' I
The stand taken was that there was material irregularity in the service of
C notice as well as in conducting the sale and thereby Rule 285(A) of the Rules
had been violated. The said objection was rejected and the sale was confirmed.
The writ petition was filed in I 99 I. Mutation proceedings had been undertaken
in the meantime by Kedar Nath. In the counter affidavit filed befo.re the High
Court, stand taken was that the order of the concerned authority i.e. the
Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 7. I. I 99 I clearly
D indicated that the plea of the writ petitioner was untenable. When the amount
alongwith interest and other dues were not paiq, the bank had requested for
recovery proceedings. Form 73 aP.d Form 73 A were sent to the writ petitioner
which were personally served. Thereafter date of auction was fixed on
18.8.1989 and the request notice was duly served. As Kedar Nath Dubey was
E the highest bidder, his bid was accepted. Considering the materials on record
it was found that the requi:;ite procedure and the prescribed rules had been
followed and there was no necessity for interfering in auction. It was indicated
that the loan account had already been closed· on 5.2.1991 as the entire
amount had been· recovered by sale of the Jana. It was highiighted with
reference to the order dated 7 .1.1991 that Sheo Narain Dubey was a habitual
F loan taker and had defaulted on many occasions in re-paying the loans. The
writ petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit stating that there was no compliance
with the requirements of confirmation. The writ petitioner's stand was that he
wanted to deposit the amount on 1.5 .1991 but the same was not accepted
and, therefore, he approached Additional District Magistrate (in short the
G 'ADM') to direct the Tehsildar, Salempur to accept the amount and the
amount had been deposited on 6.5.1991.

Primary stand before the High Court was that the prescribed Rules
were not followed, and in any event the auction sale was confirmed by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate (in short the 'SDM') who did not have the authority
H to confirm the sale or conduct the sale. The confirmation was, according to
KEDAR NATH DUBEY (D) BY LRS. v.SHEO NARAIN DUBEY (D) BY LRS. [PASAYAT, J.] 355
the writ petitioner, by an incompetent authority and, therefore, the entire A
proceeding was invalid. The High Court took the view that the application
filed by the writ petitioner for setting aside the auction sale was full of vague
and evasive statements relating to the allegation that the norms laid down in
Rule 285(1) were not confirmed and there was material irregularity. The High
Court, therefore, held that the Commissioner was right in holding that the B
order passed by the Commissioner did not suffer from any infirmity. However,
it was held that the crucial issue was that the Collector is the authority to
confirm the sale. In this context reference was made to Rules 285-A, 285-H,
285-I, 285-J, 285-K and 285-L and it was held that under Rules 284 and 285
the confirmation of the sale has to be done either by the Collector in person
or by an Assistant Collector specifically appointed by him in that behalf. It C
was held that the SDM did not have any a_uthority. A reference was made to
a Notification dated 17. l.1976 to conclude that the Assistant Collectors of
the First Class who are in charge of the Sub Division can discharge the
function of the Collector subject to the condition that the sales_are approved
by the Collector. The High Court was of the further view that except power
of approval of sale, the SDM has every other power of Collector. It was, D
therefore, held that the Collector alone is empowered to confirm the sale and
issue sale certificate. The Assistant Collector is not authorized in that behalf
in view of the scheme of the Rules as indicated in the notification dated 17th
January, 1976.

. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
E
that the High Court considered a new ground of challenge which is
impermissible. After having noticed that the respondents did not make out a
case for interference in terms of Rule 285-H it proceeded to consider an issue
which was not even pleaded in the Writ Petition. High Court erroneously
made reference to 17th January, 1976 notification without noticing that other F
notifications which held the field clearly indicated that the Sub-Divisional
Officer has the power to accord approval to the auction sale. Particular
reference in this regard was made to Notification dated 11.6.1953 and letter
of the Secretary, Revenue Board U.P. dated 7.7.1983. As the Writ Petitioner
rested its case on Rule 285-1 and the High Court did not find anything G
irregular in the order of the Commissi~ner holding that the provision to Rule
285-1 had been complied with, no interference by the High Court was called
for.

In response, learned counsel for the non-official respondents submitted
that the question of confirmation was intermittingly linked with the question H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP ..l S.C.R.

A of legality of the auction which was impugned.· According to him the High
Court's order does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant any interference.
Rules 285-A, 285-H, 285-1, 285-J, 285-K and 285-L read as follows:

"285-A Every sale under Sections 284 and 285 shall be made either
by the Collector in person or by an Assi~tant Collector specially
B appointed by him in tttis behalf. No such sale shall take place on a
Sunday or other gazetted holiday, or until after expiration of at least
thirty days from the date on which the proclamation under Rule 282
was issued.

285-H Any person whose holding or other immovable property has
c been sold under the Act, he may, at any time within thirty days, from
the date of sale, apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in
the Collector's office.

(a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to 5% of t.he
purchase m~ney; and
D
(b) for payment on account of arrears, the amount specified in
the proclamation in Z.A. Form 74 for recovery of which sale
was ordered, less any amount which may, since the date of
such proclaination of sale have been paid on that account;
and
E
(c) the cost of the sale.

On the making of such deposit, t~e Collector shall pass an order
setting aside the sale. (
Provided that if a person applied under Rule 285-I to set aside such
F
sale he shall not be entitled to make an application under this rule.

285-1 (i) At any within thirty days from the date of sale, application
may be made to the Commissioner to set aside the sale on the ground
of some material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting
G it; but no sale shall be set aside on such ground unless the applicant
proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he has sustained
substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or mistake;
I
(ii) deleted.

(iii)-The order of the Commissioner passed under this rule shall be
H

I
KEDAR NA TH DUBEY (D) BY LRS. v.SHEO NARAIN DUBEY (D) BY LRS. [PASAYAT, J.] 357
final. A
285-J On the expiration of thirty days from the date of the sale if no
such application as is mentioned in Rule 285-H or Rule 285~1 has
been made or if such application has been made and rejected by the
Collector or the Commissioner, the Collector shall pass an order
confirming the sale after satisfying himself that the purchase of land B
in question by the bidder would not be in contravention of the
provisions of Section 154 every order passed under this rule shall be
final.

285-K If no application under Rule 285-1 is made within the time
allowed therefore, all claims on the ground of irregularity or mistake C
in publishing or conducting the sale shall be barred.

Provided that nothing contained in this rule shall bar the institution
of a suit in the civil court for the purpose of setting aside a sale on
the ground of fraud.
D
285-L Whenever the sale of any holding or other immovable property
is set aside under Rule 285-H or Rule 285-1 the purchaser shall be
entitled to receive back his purchase money plus an amount not
exceeding five percent of the purchase money as the Collector or the
Commissioner, as the case may be, may determine."
E
At this juncture, it would be necessary to take note of the Notification
dated l l.6.1953 issued by the Revenue Department and published in U.P.
Gazette dated 13.6.1953. The Notification dated 11.6.1953 reads as follows:

"Revenue Department Notification No. 1756/IA-1073-53 dated
June 11, 1953, published in U.P. Gazette dated June 13, 1953: F
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (4) of Section 3 of
the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950 [(Act 1 of (1951 )], the Governor is pleased to empower all
the Sub Divisional Officers in Uttar Pradesh except those in the
districts of Almora, Garhwal, Tehri Garhwal and Rampur to G
discharge all the functions of a "Collector" under the said Act."

The Notification makes the position clear that in all the districts of
Uttar Pradesh except districts of Almora, Garhwal, Tehri Garhwal and Rampur
SDOs were authorized to discharge all the functions of the Collector under
the Act. A bare reading of the Notification dated 11.6.1953 as published in H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A the official gazette dated 13.6.1953 shows that it empowered all SDOs in
Uttar Pradesh except those in the enumerated districts to discharge all the
functions of the Collector under the Act. Letter of the Secretary, Revenue
Board, U.P. dated 7.7.1983 also throws light on the controversy. It related to
discharge of power under various provisions of the Act. It noted that by
notification of 5.12.1968 Sub-Divisional Officers have been authorized to
B discharge all functions of the Collector under the Act except Section 198.
Prima facie the stand of the appellant is correct. It appears that these pleas
were not considered by the High Court. We remit the matter to the High
Court for considering it in accordance with law. We make it clear that no
opinion has been expressed by us on the merits of the case. The High Court
C may dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible as the writ petition is
pending for more than a decade. It would be proper for the High Court to
hear the matter afresh and take a decision on the v.arious issues involved, as
there are certain vital questions which were not considered by the High
Court. The effect and relevance of the notification dated 11.6.1953 and the
letter dated 7.7·.1983 shall be considered.
D
Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs.

D.G. Appeal disposed of.